Just wondering if any history buffs had any knowledge on whether or to what extent the Jews founded this scourge. They did of course lend money to the Parliamentary side in the English Civil War, prompting Cromwell to let them back into England. However, I’m pretty sure they had no involvement in the Peasant’s Rebellion. Obviously the Jewish Establishment have really exacerbated and brought forward the pathologies that eventually followed from liberalism, but once the disease was ingrained, it seems like they would have happened anyway.

Yeah - I think they were behind it, it has the same name "Liberalism" like...hope and change. Affirmative action. Progress, its a trademark sign of these people.

Give a positive name to something destructive, who's only goal was to weaken the Catholic Church and break apart the family in society.
I just saw an article on Milo...Apparently the agenda is to now give press exposure to pediphilia...every news outlet covering it, desensitizing the American public to it.
Milo is diverting the alt right... saw it coming.

And all co Intel pro-like comments boards filling up with fake disinfo 'comments' which can't be from real people. This is a really sick country..anymore.
Its almost over.

Article in journal of contemporary history about how jews brought about the boer war to sieze control of the world's largest deposits of gold and diamonds. This is the root of jew power today.. rothchilds Oppenheimer Lehman brothers all involved. But you can only read first page.

Terms need to be defined. Classical liberalism involved the elevation of individual rights as against the state. This seems the exact opposite of the Jewish project, which has always been about tribalism and leveraging collective power. And once they realized how easy it was to graft on to the state -- e.g., communist revolution in Russia -- they became tyrants, and inveterate foes of individual rights.

gsjackson wrote:Terms need to be defined. Classical liberalism involved the elevation of individual rights as against the state. This seems the exact opposite of the Jewish project, which has always been about tribalism and leveraging collective power. And once they realized how easy it was to graft on to the state -- e.g., communist revolution in Russia -- they became tyrants, and inveterate foes of individual rights.

Wrong. It is about tribalism, and it did suit the needs of the Jewish leadership - in that it destroyed and took apart power of the holy Roman Church and all that entails. If they can fragment or discredit or take apart a thing from the inside, then it collapses on it's own accord from corruption and weakness. Hence, strengthening the tribe and leveraging collective Jewish power. If you feed or promote individualism among the masses - it creates a challenge to the autocratic government in charge, shifting power away from rulers to the individuals, weakening authority and causing disunity and chaos.
Any liberalism weakens a central authority, monarchy or autocratic government.
Democracies are one step away from this; they know democracies are inefficient and prone to disunity and corruption, because it is a bunch of sides squabbling and fighting over some things, nothing gets done. A constitutional republic was not a bad idea - it worked, and worked well.
It needed to provide protection from corruption to work well, though. Which our founding fathers warned us against.

gsjackson wrote:Terms need to be defined. Classical liberalism involved the elevation of individual rights as against the state. This seems the exact opposite of the Jewish project, which has always been about tribalism and leveraging collective power. And once they realized how easy it was to graft on to the state -- e.g., communist revolution in Russia -- they became tyrants, and inveterate foes of individual rights.

I’d define classical liberalism as the idea that everyone is rightfully equal before the law and therefore enforced hierarchies are all invalid. While this may seem opposed to modern liberalism, one in fact follows logically follows from the other. If you accept CL then it makes sense over time that the voting franchise gets expanded to poor people, blacks and females, and you let in incompatible immigrants (since we are all the same). Then when some groups don’t do as well as others it must follow that the system is rigged against them so that has to be corrected, families have to go because they form natural hierarchies etc.

Classical liberalism was about destroying the hereditary and thus stupid and decadent landowner oligarchy (misnamed aristocracy, which is greek fur meritocracy, aristos=best) in favor of the rising meritocratic industrialists. Liberalism is what caused britain to dominate the world in the 19th century. Heirs to the classical liberals are modern liberals, my class, who are very cautious about rejecting skilled scientists/engineers on the basis of race, ethnicity etc because we are only too conscious of how such rejected groups might include the next Einstein, and only too conscious that technology is growing rapidly in importance.

LOL at the idea that liberals embrace equality. Did the industrialists of 19th century Britain embrace equality in the sense of sharing their wealth and power with the riff-raff? Equality of opportunity, yes, don't want some talented youngster going to work for the Germans or French competitors, after all. Ditto for modern liberals. If there is ever a crunch time in the future, expect the technocratic elite to let the masses starve, especially those like Cornfed who cause racial divisiveness which doesn't serve our interests. The only equality we embrace is equality of opportunity within the technocrat class to ensure the technocrats don't fight a civil war but rather form a united front against the rest of society..

retiredfrank wrote:Classical liberalism was about destroying the hereditary and thus stupid and decadent landowner oligarchy (misnamed aristocracy, which is greek fur meritocracy, aristos=best) in favor of the rising meritocratic industrialists. Liberalism is what caused britain to dominate the world in the 19th century.

Yeah they used the equality myth to justify throwing out a largely defunct ruling system but ended up throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Liberalism did have some short term advantages in the same way that methamphetamine use has short term advantages for various individuals.

LOL at the idea that liberals embrace equality. Did the industrialists of 19th century Britain embrace equality in the sense of sharing their wealth and power with the riff-raff? Equality of opportunity, yes,

You are talking about different stages within a progression. Equality before the law devolves to equality of opportunity devolves to equality of outcome. The bad guys profit at every stage.

Cornfed wrote:I’d define classical liberalism as the idea that everyone is rightfully equal before the law and therefore enforced hierarchies are all invalid.

I am not sure if I agree with this. This is a matter of definition, but I would define classical liberalism as limited government and equal rights (not powers) under the law, which I consider to be good. So I consider America's founders to be classical liberals, and they restricted the power (not right) to vote to men with property. Also, liberty and equal rights does not result in either equality or individualism, but rather in meritocracy and freedom of association leading to voluntary groups (like churches and towns).

I am not sure what to call enforced equality which is obviously a horrible idea.

Cornfed wrote:I’d define classical liberalism as the idea that everyone is rightfully equal before the law and therefore enforced hierarchies are all invalid.

I am not sure if I agree with this. This is a matter of definition, but I would define classical liberalism as limited government and equal rights (not powers) under the law, which I consider to be good. So I consider America's founders to be classical liberals, and they restricted the power (not right) to vote to men with property. Also, liberty and equal rights does not result in either equality or individualism, but rather in meritocracy and freedom of association leading to voluntary groups (like churches and towns).

It is a bit like some emaciated junkie living under a bridge thinking “I just wish I could go back to the time I first started using heroin - there was no problem then”.

Let me give an example of non-egalitarianism. In a previous job, a colleague of a certain ethnic group told me that his eldest son was treated very specially in the small town he came from because he was the eldest son of an eldest son of an eldest son of an eldest son. This meant that he was groomed from birth for a community leadership position.

To take a trivial example of what this will entail, when he grows up, people will need his permission to get the family tattoo (usually on the right hand). This confers advantages such as being treated with deference at social gatherings, generally thought of as being a good guy etc. To earn the right to have this, you need to be thought of as a morally upright person of good standing in the community. Who decides this? The people who have been groomed to do so from birth of course. They are raised for a particular position, want to keep it and so keep it well, and keep everyone else in line. (Of course none of this is now legally enforceable, but in their particular area it is enforced by, shall we say, less formal methods.)

Now to a modern egalitarian, this may seem retarded, but the fact is that it works. These people are generally good where this system operates, but when they go to the big city a non-trivial percentage of them become vile animals. Just something to think about.